717
Views
2
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
CLINICAL ISSUES

Benton judgment of line orientation test: Examination of four short forms

ORCID Icon, , , , &
Pages 580-590 | Received 10 Oct 2018, Accepted 23 Apr 2019, Published online: 10 May 2019
 

Abstract

Objective: This multicenter retrospective study aimed at examining the clinical accuracy of four 15-item versions (Woodard’s O and E; Quall’s Q and S) of the original 30-item Benton judgment of line orientation test in a mixed clinical sample of 260 patients. It is a test frequently used as a measure of visuospatial processing. It has the advantage of requiring minimal motor skills, while a major weakness is the lengthy administration time.

Method: An archival search was conducted within four in- and out-patient clinics. The frequency and magnitude of score differences were calculated to examine the equivalence of the short forms. We then checked the clinical accuracy of the short forms concerning classification of impaired, borderline, and non-impaired performance, according to NEURONORMA norms. After that, we calculated sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and kappa coefficients to assess the classification outcome of the short versions compared to the long version, when using a dichotomous classification (impaired versus intact performance).

Results: When applying NEURONORMA norms, specificity (99.1%), PPV (93.1%), and kappa coefficient (0.87) were highest for version E. NPV (99.4%) and sensitivity (95.5%) were highest for version S, but the PPV of this version was relatively low (67.7%).

Conclusions: We suggest use of version E when a short test is needed, as specificity, kappa coefficient, and PPV are highest for this version, while maintaining a high NPV (97.8%). However, future research should develop new normative data for these short 15-item versions.

Acknowledgment

We are grateful to Dr J. Hill for proof reading.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Correction Statement

This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Log in via your institution

Log in to Taylor & Francis Online

PDF download + Online access

  • 48 hours access to article PDF & online version
  • Article PDF can be downloaded
  • Article PDF can be printed
USD 53.00 Add to cart

Issue Purchase

  • 30 days online access to complete issue
  • Article PDFs can be downloaded
  • Article PDFs can be printed
USD 462.00 Add to cart

* Local tax will be added as applicable

Related Research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.